June 3, 2016

"We at Vox do not take institutional positions on most questions, and we encourage our writers to debate and disagree. But direct encouragement of riots crosses a line between expressing a contrary opinion and directly encouraging dangerous, illegal activity...."

I had to go elsewhere to find the text of the over-the-line tweets. Here, at Mediaite: "Advice: If Trump comes to your town, start a riot." "Listen, if Trump is Hitler then you've got no business condemning rioters. If he isn't, you've got no business pretending normal is better." "Let's be clear: It's never a shame to storm the barricades set up around a fascist."

Here's Rensin's Twitter feed. Those posts that got him suspended are still up, and there's a lot more since then, such as: "You spent a year saying Trump was a fascist, and particularly an anti-Hispanic bigot. Hispanics take that seriously, and you're Shocked." "If you too believe he's a fascist, then ask yourself what it means to concern troll poor, Latino folks who take that belief seriously." "It remains unclear to me what people believe the appropriate response to fascism is. Say 'fascist, fascist, fascist', people will freak." "If Trump *isn't* a fascist or an existential threat to democracy, fine. But then let's stop saying that he is."

I understand. All I need to do is declare somebody a "fascist" and I am allowed to encourage and/or participate in riots. Point well taken. And that decision will be made based on my superior knowledge of the relevant facts.

I also declare that it's ok to riot if the candidate is a "communist." Whether the candidate is or isn't will be based on my superior knowledge also.

Watch out. I'm not in a good mood, and I'm getting ready to make some declarations.

All this stems from the left's failure to understand their opponents. They believe fully in their own caricatures of Trump supporters. They absolutely fully believe that Trump supporters are a bunch of nasty, bigoted, sadistic, violent troglodytes who want to physically hurt or even kill ethnic migrants. And therefore the only response is desperate violence. It's a very human mistake. It's easier to believe your enemies are monsters than to try to understand them. It's much easier to be dismissive than to engage in any actual analysis of one's opponent.

At least one Weekly Standard writer has come in favor of choosing Hillary over Trump. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, after the GOP convention, Bill Kristol himself, King of the Neocons, endorses Hillary, and Hillary celebrates Kristol's endorsement.This election season is very entertaining.

" Sacramento Dems are the ones who want to make the trains run on time."

They don't, actually. They just want to handle the money, and have some of it stick to them. They are much more like the smash and grab thief that causes $2000 damage to your car in order to steal $20.

What do you suppose Ezra told him? How could you not know your role? Your job was to sadly shake your head at overenthusiastic youths while blaming the whole event on Trump. Other people take "direct action". Just because you're on the same team doesn't mean you can tell everyone. Each cog has its job.

Only one major candidate has actually encouraged violence:http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html

Have Bernie or Hillary said anything similar? If the anti-Semites and white nationalists are fringe elements within Trump's group of supporters, can't the same be said of these violent anti-Trump protesters?

"The Charade that Trump makes people violent is the epitome of the sleazy and dishonest media scum."

Yeah, isn't that the defense of husbands and boyfriends who physically abuse their women.

Exactly. The same lame excuse. She made me do it (beat the tar out of her). She was asking for it. It is her fault. OR....She got raped because she was dressed provocatively, was alone at night, she was asking to be raped. Same thing with Trump supporters. They are asking to be beat up because...reasons. It is all Trump's fault. He made us riot, burn cars, wave Mexican flags, beat people up.....see how bad Trump is? /facepalm

This is the exact excuse someone gave for that woman in San Jose, who is a Trump supporter getting harassed, things thrown at her. It was her fault, they reason, because she was at a rally for Trump. Therefore she deserved to be treated that way. She didn't cower down to the rioters obviously was asking for it.

It could have gone worse. She could have been really hurt. Someone could have decided to protect her and hurt some of the rioters. If the media continues to encourage this mob behavior on the part of the rioters because the media doesn't like Trump, it will directly and positively their fault when someone is killed. Of course, they don't really care about the individual people or the consequences of their own actions in egging on the riots.

I must admit I admire the non-violence so far of the Trumpites. It really surprises me how peaceful they have remained in the face of tremendous provocation, e.g. shutting down the rally in Chicago.

The writer should attend a Trump rally firsthand. Rally-goers in San Diego last week ranged in age from stroller-bound to walker/wheelchair-bound and every age in between. I saw a roughly equal number of women as men.

I've only read this post, so I lack context. Is he in fact arguing that people should stop calling Trump a fascist? He's actually making a good argument for that. Being reckless with your language, as the left has been, is inciting violence, so they should either stop, or they should embrace the riots they're inciting.

Blogger tim in vermont said...Maybe Vox can do an "explainer" on what Hitler's Brownshirts did to help him seize power? I guess that might not be something Democrats wish to explore right now.I've read that Hitler told Hindenberg that he could rule the streets and see to it that the 'wrong' people didn't make it to the polls. Supposedly Hindenberg (who didn't like Hitler or the Nazis much), told Hitler not to bother, they would win anyway. I don't know how well that story is sourced.Hitler had a private army of 400,000 in 1932 (the SA). So, no, Trump is not Hitler.

Since "fascist" is now the all-purpose Prog epithet for any non-Prog, it is a greater insult not to be called fascist. Of course, poor old Benito is turning over in his tomb, mad at being associated with a short-fingered capitalist vulgarian, wondering why Bernie doesn't proudly claim the legacy and Hill only uses one arrow in her logo.

"Have Bernie or Hillary said anything similar? If the anti-Semites and white nationalists are fringe elements within Trump's group of supporters, can't the same be said of these violent anti-Trump protesters?"

No, the same can not be said.

The difference is Trump and his supporters denounce racism and anti-semitism while Hillary and Bernie tacitly support brown shirt violence.

They are Bernie/Hillary supporters. They are raising Mexican flags and burning american flags. They have actually as a group attacked people they disagree with in broad daylight in front of police. There is no similar example of this kind of activity on the right of a similarly accepted and endorsed group.

The monopolists are concerned that a capitalist economy deprives them of economic leverage, and pro-native policies deprive them of democratic leverage, as well as compensation for devaluation of capital and labor through liberal fiscal policies. Their indulgence in class diversity, selective exclusion, and debasing human life through reactive (e.g. selective child) and planned (i.e. clinical cannibalism) parenthood has failed to satisfy their baser appetites.

I am in full agreement with the violent San Jose anti-Trump protestors. It's time to Make California Mexico Again.

The thing is..California was part of Mexico for a very short period of time. While the Spanish controlled it, it was a separate province from Mexico. After the Spanish left, and Mexico assumed nominal control the Californios (Spanish born in California) resisted Mexican governance, and were often in open revolt in the twenty five years of Mexican rule.

Everyone assumes that "protesters" beating up rally attendees or waving Mexican flags harm their own cause. What if it doesn't?

The people commenting on this, along these lines, may be living in a bubble too. The exercise of power, of impunity, is itself attractive to those on the other side. Everyone (well, a lot) loves a winner, and those that are seen to "win" over those they can humiliate with impunity can attract more of their own, and moreso create enthusiasm. And, on the other side, its probably imprudent to discount the morale effect of losing the humiliation game daily on the media for the next five months.

"While the Spanish controlled it, it was a separate province from Mexico."

It was ruled by the Viceroy of New Spain from Mexico City, along with a huge swathe of territory including all of modern Mexico and lot else also. Several of these internal administrative divisions got into an independent Mexico. There actually wasn't a "Mexico" as a unified entity as we know it, Mexico proper being a small piece of the whole. In truth this was an assemblage of many pieces. Nueva Galicia, for instance, not in "Mexico" then, became modern Mexican provinces of Jalisco, Zacatecas and some other bits. That was the status of California, not more or less Mexican on that score than a dozen Mexican provinces.

"Have Bernie or Hillary said anything similar? If the anti-Semites and white nationalists are fringe elements within Trump's group of supporters, can't the same be said of these violent anti-Trump protesters?"

Reading the kid's twitter feed, he seems to believe that Trump is fascism personified, and this justifies violence against Trump and his fascist followers, where ever they may be encountered. He also says that "property destruction is not violence."First, I have to wonder if the Vox editor actually knows what 'fascism' means, and further, can coherently explain why Trump would fit this meme. Then I have to wonder about this sense that they - the victims of the fascists - face such persecution that they are justified in violence now. What persecution is happening? Is Imminent? Is even threatened? Someone gonna take away his skateboard? His iPad? This is some stupid, juvenile response to too many movies like Vendetta, wanting to wear cool Guy Fawkes' masks, something. Vox will probably ban him for a week from the nightly Warcraft game. Really show him they're serious.

The goons and their enablers minimizing or excusing away the attacks on Trump rally attendees... people getting bashed over the head, tackled and thrown to the ground, spat on or egged, or having bottles thrown at them (Oh, it's not violent, all I saw was an egging... that cut on the head will heal in days") are some of the the same people who were pounding the table calling for a criminal prosecution of Corey Lewendowski.

Some savvy person who attended that Trump rally should contact a really vicious civil rights attorney (Forget the ACLU. They ain't who they used to be.). Then said legal eagle should take out some ads in an around San Jose asking for attendees to join a class action suit against Emmett Rensin and Mayor Sam Liccardo for conspiracy to violate their civil right to peaceable assembly in that Rensin used social media to incite violence against the attendees, and hizzoner Soapy Sam insured violence would happen by restraining his PD.

As a radical leftist of the 60's I can remember how we applied the 'fascist' label to anyone who didn't agree with us. Cops were 'pigs' AND 'fascists', all politicos were fascists. [Truly, it makes me sick today to consider our conduct]. I do believe we evolved from a more informed platform than have the protesters of today, in that we were better educated. We were right about Vietnam and that fact seemed to give us the moral certitude to condemn all elements of the established order.

He seems to believe there is a duty to riot under certain circumstances. What's up with that? What is rioting supposed to accomplish? Does he suppose that rioting is a useful activity, beneficial to the community at large, but still, for some craven and disreputable reason, the stolid and self-interested majority of us just flatly refuse to help out by breaking some windows and throwing hard objects at people who can't strike back? How many riots does he think will be needed to perfect the cities we live in?

I think not. Who can say today that the massive expenditure of lives, limbs and resources was worth the result? If you are, on the other hand, implying that our military strategy was faulty and that we should have played to win, then I might agree with you now, although not at the time. I agree with Trump: Maintain a strong military, avoid war if possible but, if not, then fight to win. Victory is not a dirty word.

Mockturtle wrote:"Victory is not a dirty word."It is mind blowing that some neocons support Hillary over Trump because of her record of supporting military intervention.Hillary has f*cked up every military call she has ever made. Iraq? Syria? Libya? Hillary ain't exactly Douglas MacArthur.

exactly, the one exception was iraq, and she recanted on that, but libya which looks like something out of hieronymous bosch, now mark moyar does points out, that we probably lost the war, before the marines landed at danang, largely through the diem coup,

Mockturtle: "...we were right about Vietnam." No, you were not. You cannot now disentangle your selfishness (the draft) from how you were played by the enemy. Useful idiots, happily rewriting history with that superior education.

How many images of tossing wheel chair bound granny off a cliff.... How many declarations of a "war on women".... How many labels of racist/fascist/misogynist ... How many calls to get in their face.... How many calls to punch back twice as hard.... How many statements that Republicans are the enemy.... How many declarations that cops are holding open hunting season on young, black men.... How many cries that the NRA has blood on its hands....

"If you are, on the other hand, implying that our military strategy was faulty and that we should have played to win"

The strategy was dominated by DuPuy's doctrine of industrial war. By the time Abrams took over, we were on the right track. Read Bing West's book, "The Village." Sadly, it was too late. Maybe if the coup d'etat against Nixon had not occurred, we could have saved South Vietnam but even that was probably too late.

Benito was the smartest leader in WW II...but also leader of, easily, the weakest power involved. He didn't so much "make deals" as "tie himself to the bigger dog". Italy couldn't do a damned thing on their own.

Everyone assumes that "protesters" beating up rally attendees or waving Mexican flags harm their own cause. What if it doesn't?

Then chaos follows and the US ceases to be. When people watch rampant lawlessness excused by authorities, the authorities lose all semblance of legitimacy. Does the mayor think he could disarm ALL people if he tried to do so? Most cities in CA are struggling with pensions as is and are not well staffed when it comes to police.

If rioters decide to use guns to make their point, there isn't much the police would be able to do to stop them. Numbers aren't on their side and, without legitimacy, little would deter. You'd also see a huge uptick in vigilante justice.

Five months of the Mexican flag in protests may make it a familiar and acceptable sight in US politics.

It'd also make it really easy, if one chooses to do so, to attack Mexico claiming an invasion. If you see lots of Mexican flags around while Americans are attacked, it's a REAL easy bit of propaganda to blame the Mexican government for all of it. But, remember, if we simply cut the money coming from the US to Mexico, Mexico collapses. Our illegals are their biggest source of revenue.

He also says that "property destruction is not violence."

So we can torch the place he lives and he'd be OK with it? I mean, he is calling for people he doesn't like to be attacked --- retribution seems like fair game.

I think not. Who can say today that the massive expenditure of lives, limbs and resources was worth the result? If you are, on the other hand, implying that our military strategy was faulty and that we should have played to win, then I might agree with you now, although not at the time. I agree with Trump: Maintain a strong military, avoid war if possible but, if not, then fight to win. Victory is not a dirty word.

Also, don't embed reporters. Don't let them anywhere near the action. Barely speak to reporters. Their only goal is to see the US lose. Don't give them ammo.

The strategy was dominated by DuPuy's doctrine of industrial war. By the time Abrams took over, we were on the right track. Read Bing West's book, "The Village." Sadly, it was too late. Maybe if the coup d'etat against Nixon had not occurred, we could have saved South Vietnam but even that was probably too late.

It'd have required a total change in Congressional elections.

It's almost infuriating that Republicans were ready to toss Nixon out over Watergate when we've seen, repeatedly, that Democrats will not hold other Dems to ANY standards.

After Vietnam, I'm shocked anybody remains an ally of ours. After Obama, I'd have to question the intellect or sanity of anybody who is still an ally.

Areas the link that Birches posted at 4:08 pm to a recent article by this author, Makes me think that perhaps the guy was trolling the left with his tweets encouraging violence, and the more recent tweets lend support to that theory (he seems to be saying- "if you really think Trump is a fascist then riot, but if that troubles you then stop and consider that you don't really believe your own BS about Trump.)

That's a good point. I'd read the referenced article a couple weeks ago and thought it was very perceptive. It's hard to reconcile the guy behind that article with the one who inanely recommends rioting.

Rensin posts this anti-violence piece from his blog: http://emmettrensin.com/blog/2016/5/14/some-brief-thoughts-on-political-violence

In it he denounces all violence , but also claims a "moral duty to the material equality of all people". He's young.

If you're right, and he's chiding the false narrative purveyors, including his employer, it's interesting Vox didn't try to explain his intentions, but just suspended him.

Actually, if you look at it from the point of view of the Mexican ruling class..things are going great! Just ask Carlos Slim.

Yeah. And like other Progressive groups globally, the Dems do not care if they kill this country as long as they get to steal all of the money.

Trump supporters need to carry guns. A mob wants to surround you? Since your health and life are in jeopardy, open fire and don't stop until the mob dissipates. If they don't, have two guns with you and keep firing. You'll suffer, but you'll take a number of them with you. If the police want to take them, refuse. They aren't there to protect you, clearly, so they are the enemy.

This stupid conceit that even reformed 60s radicals have that "at least they were right about Viet Nam" is maddening.

Ho Chih Minh slaughtered at least 172,000 people in commie "land reforms" long before dreamy-eyed libtards ever heard Pete Seeger literally singing his praises at concerts and before most Americans ever heard of the country.

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam_landreform-20060608.html

Communism was already the most murderous ideology the modern world has ever known and it hadn't even been 50 years since Lenin took power, and the radical left at that time (and still today) couldn't figure that out.

Ignorant left-tard assholes were actively romanticizing the Viet Minh, Viet Cong and Ho Chih Minh. Hell, they still do it today.

Jason, our involvement in Vietnam was wrong from the get-go. My brother was over there and can testify to the absurdity of the whole situation. I've never held any admiration for Ho or any other communists, for that matter. But it concerns me that we haven't learned a thing from that experience about these types of military actions.

Anyone else think his logic is off? If Trump is Literally Hitler, as he seems to think and has propagated, why did he set murder off-limits? I see where he's trying to shame his own bandwagon, but isn't he guilty of what he accuses them of? Trump is Hitler, but only property damage is appropriate? If one actually believes that, surely murder, mayhem, nuclear first strikes are all on the table?

I emailed Klein, asking for the duration of the suspension, if it was paid or not, and why firing is not justified. No answer, of course.

If only there were some group of people professionally dedicated to asking and getting responses from folk like Klein, about such issues; people who would post that information on public media so folks like me would learn what was happening. Oh, well, maybe one day such a job, such people, will exist.